Search My Blog

March 31, 2008

Just wanted to show you the deal breaker for Obama getting my vote. Well, one of many really but let's not split hairs. The photo below has Senator Barack Obama, Governor Bill Richardson, Senator Hillary Clinton and Ruth Harkin stand during the national anthem. Barack Hussein Obama not only refused to say the pledge of allegiance but also did not put his hand over his heart during the pledge. At least Billary had the couth to not exclude voters and put her hand over her cold, empty heart. If Obama can't even say the pledge of allegiance, how the hell can this tool be Commander in Chief? For those of you who can't remember the pledge here it is written out the way it is supposed to be said, not with the breaks in it so kindergarteners can remember it.:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the country for which it stands: One nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

So who does Obama pledge his allegiance to?

Here is an interesting article by NY Sun columnist Kenneth Blackwell entitled Beyond Obama's Beauty (2/14/2008). (Pssst, did I mention Mr. Blackwell is black?). It really brings the Democratic forerunner to light- so much so that when I listed to Obama very closely there really isn't much substanc to his messages- and almost makes Billary a more viable choice for a Democratic president. That is, if you are so inclined to elect someone that stole shit from the White House as she left her husbands presidency. Here is the article from the NYS:

** Bold words added as emphasis by me.

Beyond Obama's BeautyBy KENNETH BLACKWELLFebruary 14, 2008

"[C]ivilizational war is real, even if political leaders and polite punditry must call it by another name."

— Robert D. Kaplan in the December 2001 issue of the Atlantic Monthly

It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first front running freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.

We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.

The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the front runner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him.

Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.

Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential front runner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.

Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial "beauty."

Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as Commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.

Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich." How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.

Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked" - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francis co values, not Middle America values.

The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of "bringing America together" means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.

But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.

It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.

March 19, 2008

The five year mark approaches for the start of the most important war of our time. Nary a word is spoken, however, by our Presidential hopefuls. The Democrats have resorted to their old tricks and all the Republicans have to do is sit back and enjoy the show and Clinton and Obama duke it out.

I think that 5 years is a long time to be tied up in a place where feelings of our presence (by the locals) are so misplaced. Then again, a lot of people who don't want us there probably are reallyh locals anyway. I'm sure there are thousands of people form Iran, Syria, and other asshole countries, who are there solely to make our lives a living hell as we try to get some semblance of sanity in the region.

On one hand, people there deserve a life without being blown to bits by a group (any group) of people Allah bent on spreading their defunct religion to all corners of the earth. Juxtaposed is the fact that we have been there a long time, it is getting harder to control the fanatical assholes who like to blow themselves and women, children, and Americans up in an attempt to spread the "religion of peace".

Should we pack up and leave, another mess left for someone else to figure out, or worse, leave it for another insane dictator to sweep in and claim the spoils? Or do we stick it out because, quite simply, fuck those guys. Why should the fanatic muslims and other despots have free reign to bug the world whenever they feel like it, most of the time with no ill effects from the world? Now that I think about it, they are usually hailed by the lunatic left.

/shake head

I have reposted an old internet email that has floated around for some time. I have changed the values in the email to reflect current losses and added my sources for good measure. I did not put the pictures in the post because most of those people infuriate me just to see them.

There were 69 combat related killings in Iraq January and February, 2008.In New Orleans, now dubbed the murder capitol of the U.S., had 28 murders in the months of January and February. That's just one American city, about 40% as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.

Some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, basically taking the position that Saddam only killed his own people so it really isn't any of our business. They also call it "illegal" based on the premise that we should have given Saddam another chance to comply with U.N. weapons inspectors- even though he blew them off more than a dozen times before.

Here are some interesting tidbits about past presidents and wars/conflicts they brought the U.S. into.

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us; Japan did. From 1941- 1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. We've lost 3990 U.S. soldiers in Iraq, to date, since the war started.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea although North Korea never attacked us .From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost- an average of 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire (if you can stand to read that word now). From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost- an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent (where was the liberal outcry then?). Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. Bush also put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and North Korea without firing a shot.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking. Since we are talking about time lines, let's take a look at some important ones that have slipped under the couch cushions.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound.That was a 51-day operation..

We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records. Hard to find those kinds of things when people keep dying...

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida.

Here is a great dialogue of Senator John Glenn (the astronaut, remember?) on the Senate Floor, January 26, 2004

Many people do not understand why the military personnel do what they do for a living. I spent 20 years riding submarines and I still don't know why I did it a lot of the time. Well, that's not true, I know exactly why I did it, but always asked myself why I KEPT doing it despite all the bullshit. But many people share John Kerry's retarded remark he made about the military, that we are all, basically, a bunch of dumbasses that couldn't do anything else in life.

Here is an exchange between Senator John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum.

Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn):

How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?

Senator Glenn (D-Ohio):

I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank.

I ask you to go with me, as I went the other day, to a veteran's hospital and look those men, with their mangled bodies, in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job!

You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphansof Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee and you look those kids in the eye and tell themthat their DADS didn't hold a job.

You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery , where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags. You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you tell ME that those people didn't have a job?

What about you?

Glenn asks Metzenbaum about his 'job' status as a slam. For those who don't know, or remember, during W.W.II, SENATOR Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA.

March 4, 2008

I think Obi wan just didn't realize the applicability of his statement about Mos Eisley spaceport when he said, "You'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy". I wonder if George Lucas was thinking of the U .N. when he wrote that little quip because that is exactly what I think of whenever I read something about the U.N.

The U.N. is showing some signs of sacking up and telling Iran to cut the crap when it imposed a third set of sanctions on Iran's nuclear program. Everyone's gut feeling was that Iran was enriching the uranium from their power plants to weapons grade stuff. There were some sources that verified what we all knew was going on and the U.N. is "Mad as hell and we aren't going to take it anymore- by gum, we'll slap 15 more sanctions on Iran and they will be just as effective as the 13 we slapped on Iraq!"

/wrist

But at least it is something and there is enough concern growing that Iran would actually nuke Israel if given the opportunity. At first, Russia sided with Iran, as they usually do when it comes to making the world a better place, and then China followed Russia's stance, as they usually do wh-... well, you get the picture. All that is left now is for North Korea to become outraged and possibly even something from Venezuela's piss ant dictator and the circle will be complete. Oh, except for the liberals who love to see evil thrive in the world and make a big deal about it here at home.

But it seems, at the time of this post, that Russia has changed its position and urges Tehran to comply with the U.N. China will probably follow suit shortly.

Yeah, that's right. It's illogical- it doesn't make sense to Iran that it is wrong to want to blow people up with a nuclear bomb just because of differences in religion. Politically motivated? I didn't know there was a political body called 'common sense and decency'. I thought those were just traits good people had.

One day, one day soon, I hope, the scientists will get off their asses and stop messing around with trying to cure diseases and get on the really important stuff- like time travel. Then we just get a few trusted people to back in time and stage adolescent accidents of all the people who grow up to be Grade A assholes in high places who insist on making things difficult for the rest of the world.

Hitler- found head down, ass up with extreme tearing in his anus. Evidence of a bear raping found on scene.

Castro- found head down, ass up with extreme tearing in his anus. Evidence of a donkey raping found on scene.

It would baffle criminologists throughout the decades of why a few teenagers, possible even young adults, are found brutally sodomized by an animal, with a peculiar sticker found on the top of their ass that read "Sorry about this, but you bugged the world".